ORS 59.135 does not possess a rebuttable presumption component concerning fraud in reliance, nor is there a federal preemption problem concerning the dormant Commerce Clause because Oregon law does not require those elements as proof.

The State alleged that defendants violated Oregon securities law by making false statements concerning validity of investments that resulted in the State losing millions of dollars. This case had two key components; both were derived from the lower court granting summary judgment. The State argued that it is not the dormant commerce clause that regulates Oregon Securities law for this analysis, but the analysis is properly sceinter. Next the State argued that there should be no rebuttable presumption of reliance under the fraud-on-the-market theory. The Court od Appeals held that the trial court erred in finding that Marsh had rebutted the presumption of reliance. The Court additionally held that there is no preemption problem concerning federal statutes because federal law requires proof of elements that Oregon law does not require. Reversed and remanded.